White House call to 'flag' dissent loathsome

Watermark said:
They didn't ask for names, and they wouldn't even know who you were talking about if you sent in a name, so such information would obviously be thrown out immediately.
Click to expand...


Do you have a source for this bit of information? Names would be thrown out? did you just make that up or what?
 
Watermark said:
It's not a request to turn in people who dissent on the reform. It's just a request that E-Mails and such spreading rumors should be forwarded to them so that they can better deal with and have a grasp of the misinformation out there. They didn't ask for names, and they wouldn't even know who you were talking about if you sent in a name, so such information would obviously be thrown out immediately. And this goes to Obama's political offices, not an arm of the government. This is nothing but a disingenuous attempt to criss-cross Obama's position as leader of his party and his position as leader of the state, when clearly they are different roles.

Talk about faux outrage of the year.
Click to expand...
Information sent to the White House cannot be culled by law. All correspondence must be kept and archived. And again, this also breaks another law, information cannot be kept from those who are practicing their first amendment rights. The only way to not break the law in this circumstance is to never get the correspondence. They can't just "throw away" any of the information.

These laws were created to protect people after Nixon. Maybe the WH should rethink their "report your friends" program.
 
Watermark said:
It's not a request to turn in people who dissent on the reform. It's just a request that E-Mails and such spreading rumors should be forwarded to them so that they can better deal with and have a grasp of the misinformation out there. They didn't ask for names, and they wouldn't even know who you were talking about if you sent in a name, so such information would obviously be thrown out immediately. And this goes to Obama's political offices, not an arm of the government. This is nothing but a disingenuous attempt to criss-cross Obama's position as leader of his party and his position as leader of the state, when clearly they are different roles.

Talk about faux outrage of the year.
Click to expand...

It's like whistling "Dixie" into a hurricane with these yahoos.
 
Damocles said:
Information sent to the White House cannot be culled by law. All correspondence must be kept and archived. And again, this also breaks another law, information cannot be kept from those who are practicing their first amendment rights. The only way to not break the law in this circumstance is to never get the correspondence. They can't just "throw away" any of the information.

These laws were created to protect people after Nixon. Maybe the WH should rethink their "report your friends" program.
Click to expand...


Think for just a second about how jaw-droppingly stupid your interpretation of the law is. For just a second. I know that that law is often an ass but the idea that (1) the White House must keep and archive every piece of mail (and email) it receives and (2) information cannot be kept from those exercising their First Amendment rights is choke-on-your-own-spit stupid.

Think about it.

Basically, your position is that the White House can never allow itself to receive mail (or email) from any citizen about any issue ever because if it does it is in this horrendous legal Catch-22 that it can never get out of all for allowing itself to receive mail.
 
Dungheap said:
Think for just a second about how jaw-droppingly stupid your interpretation of the law is. For just a second. I know that that law is often an ass but the idea that (1) the White House must keep and archive every piece of mail (and email) it receives and (2) information cannot be kept from those exercising their First Amendment rights is choke-on-your-own-spit stupid.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

you better go ask a lawyer, because what he said is right.
the Hugo is real close to breaking the law, and someone should bring this up..or it will look good in an ad for 2010..
 
Dungheap said:
Think for just a second about how jaw-droppingly stupid your interpretation of the law is. For just a second. I know that that law is often an ass but the idea that (1) the White House must keep and archive every piece of mail (and email) it receives and (2) information cannot be kept from those exercising their First Amendment rights is choke-on-your-own-spit stupid.

Think about it.

Basically, your position is that the White House can never allow itself to receive mail (or email) from any citizen about any issue ever because if it does it is in this horrendous legal Catch-22 that it can never get out of all for allowing itself to receive mail.
Click to expand...
The laws about the First Amendment rights came after the Feds kept records of protestor groups that you likely support, FOIA caused much of those records to only recently be released, it wasn't pretty. The laws that they must keep all correspondence were created after Nixon tried to destroy records that were pertinent.

It is what is. While the laws are contrary, they are laws. Calling for this from the WH is a mistake. He should have had one of the other cogs in the machine make the call.
 
Damocles said:
The laws about the First Amendment rights came after the Feds kept records of protestor groups that you likely support, FOIA caused much of those records to only recently be released, it wasn't pretty. The laws that they must keep all correspondence were created after Nixon tried to destroy records that were pertinent.

It is what is. While the laws are contrary, they are.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm calling bullshit. While I'd love to take your word for it I'll need some sourcing before I reach the conclusion that the White House is in violation of the law every time it receives mail or email from a citizen about any issue.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, I'm calling bullshit. While I'd love to take your word for it I'll need some sourcing before I reach the conclusion that the White House is in violation of the law every time it receives mail or email from a citizen about any issue.
Click to expand...
No, just ones where they are specifically requesting information on groups or individuals who are practicing their first amendment rights. Can you understand the difference? Because it is glaring and huge. No president has yet called on people to report their neighbors and friends for speaking out against their ideological stances. This is wholly a new animal, and it is a call to collect data that they cannot by law collect because it is specifically a database created for this purpose, because by law they have to create the database...

They should not have made this call from the WH, any federal agency is covered under this particular law.
 
Damocles said:
No, just ones where they are specifically requesting information on groups or individuals who are practicing their first amendment rights. Can you understand the difference? Because it is glaring and huge. No president has yet called on people to report their neighbors and friends for speaking out against their ideological stances. This is wholly a new animal, and it is a call to collect data that they cannot by law collect because it is specifically a database created for this purpose, because by law they have to create the database...

They should not have made this call from the WH, any federal agency is covered under this particular law.
Click to expand...


Show me where the law makes the distinction that you are making.

And shouldn't you be out getting fitted for your tinfoil hat? This is really sad. You should maybe cool off and read some Lynne Cheney because it seems some screws are getting loose.
 
Dungheap said:
Show me where the law makes the distinction that you are making.

And shouldn't you be out getting fitted for your tinfoil hat? This is really sad. You should maybe cool off and read some Lynne Cheney because it seems some screws are getting loose.
Click to expand...
I linked to it earlier. Oh wait. I'll see if I can find a good site about the Privacy Act.

If I send the WH a letter they have to archive it, but keeping a specific database about people who are practicing their first amendment rights is illegal. Calling for people to report it causes a legal quandary if you call for that kind of information specifically from a branch of the government.
 
Damocles said:
I linked to it earlier. Oh wait. I'll see if I can find a good site about the Privacy Act.

If I send the WH a letter they have to archive it, but keeping a specific database about people who are practicing their first amendment rights is illegal. Calling for people to report it causes a legal quandary if you call for that kind of information specifically from a branch of the government.
Click to expand...

1. It's not a database about people who are practicing their "first amendment rights", its a compendium of chain letters.

2. It's probably going to his political offices.
 
Watermark said:
1. It's not a database about people who are practicing their "first amendment rights", its a compendium of chain letters.

2. It's probably going to his political offices.
Click to expand...
Not from an official website it isn't. There are specific ways you could collect personal information, but even that has to go through much scrutiny before destruction when you are the President, specifically his and the VP's records cannot be destroyed except under very specific circumstances which this does not follow.

And I linked to the law later, it may be in a different thread. I think you can find it.
 
Damocles said:
Not from an official website it isn't. There are specific ways you could collect personal information, but even that has to go through much scrutiny before destruction when you are the President, specifically his and the VP's records cannot be destroyed except under very specific circumstances which this does not follow.

And I linked to the law later, it may be in a different thread. I think you can find it.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you outsourse it to a contractor that loses hard drives or somesuch.
Lest we forget Cheney's email escapades and mixing of politics and his duties as VP.
 
uscitizen said:
Unless of course you outsourse it to a contractor that loses hard drives or somesuch.
Lest we forget Cheney's email escapades and mixing of politics and his duties as VP.
Click to expand...
No need to forget it, it is exactly what I am talking about. The records are not his to destroy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top